Vic Tiered Racing

There was an interesting interview with long time industry member John Hallam on Harness review this week

https://soundcloud.com/user-46112780...5th-april-2016

Tune in from about the 40 min mark if you only wish to here JH's interview

In discussing the merits of a tiered racing system, John pointed out a few things that many may not realize eg
There will be 800 less Country front races and 800 more Restricted class races

He fears that such a tiered system will not work - that the good horses/big stables will not skip over these Restricted class races but rather work their way through them - resulting in more, not less, Odds On faves

He emphasized that participants have to be able to get a reasonable return

I totally agree with his point that restricted class racing at Melton cheapens what is supposed to be our Premier track (can you imagine the gallops doing this to Flemington)

It was alarming that he believes the rank and file trainers and drivers are still not really being heard and stated that while Lance Justice is being quoted as supporting the system - as their representative, the association has not had a meeting for 18 months! (JH said that Lance was in NZ when contacted and not yet aware of the details of the proposed system)

In JH's opinion the continued strengthening of the Vicbred Bonus system is essential

what john said was great, he knew what he was talking and didnt held back when most gutless people would. is their any where on line to se the report

i really now believe that hrv must get rid of the breeders crown and put all the money into the vicbred 2-3 series and vicbred bonus.

Vaughn Lynch, General manager of operations spends a half hour with Cody answering questions about tiered racing

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=29701

To summarize:
It is all about addressing the decline in our horse population
The new advisory council were generally positive about it at their very first meeting but admittedly did not have all the details
Social media tends to attract negative opinions but he receives positive (a bit dismissive when you consider that social media posts are actually substantiated opinions)
The pie is just being cut up differently - there are 800 races getting less but 2000 getting more
As far as more R races producing more odds on faves he had stats that R races have less odds on faves
He suggested that 'conditions' would be used to stop the picking of low hanging fruit
R racing does not produce less turnover and to improve turnover we need full fields, even racing (punters see value) and full fields, which is what they are trying to do

As Steve suggested in another thread - it is all about turnover but Vaughan states that is then returned to the industry (they are a not for profit organization)
In reply to Andy Gath's suggestion that the majority of the industry think this scheme is doomed, he said that they will always be listening and tinkering but it is about competing for the gambling dollar (he did however earlier suggest that this system would have to be given at least a year for a fair trial)

Social media is the modern day version of a letter to the editor or a hard hitting cover story in Trembath's Trotting Weekly.

On the video Vaughn suggests that the existing prize-money structure is a socialist system but maybe it should be
Further on he states that there is no discernible difference between turnover on R and C class races so maybe they should receive comparable prizemoney
Think of it like commission work - if you are bringing in the dollars then you are entitled to your share

The worry is whether the grassroots trainer can survive. This will depend on whether they can win as much prizemoney ie as many R&C races or 2+ R races for every C they used to win. This would seem to be dependent on whether the bigger stables will concentrate on the C class races or whether they will attempt to corner both C&R. I fear they may do both

Using Vaughn's pie analogy
If there used to be 400 large pieces 2400 medium pieces and 800 small pieces
but now there is to be
400 very large pieces, 1600 medium+ pieces and 1600 small pieces
I think the bigger stables will eat more small pieces to keep their bellies full

If we lose smaller grassroots trainers I fear we not only have less people involved in the sport but also loose followers/owners from the communities from which they came.

Maybe tiered racing might see the bigger trainers leave the minor meetings to the smaller stables if tomorrow's Melton Restricted program became the pattern.
There are only 3 of Vics top 10 trainers represented by a mere 7 runners with 4 of them coming from our 10th placed trainer G Douglas
IMO it is a bit of a worry that he is becoming strong again after such a lenient suspension for such a dubious act

The scheme will now have 4 tiers (5 if you add Metro) with the creation of a $5k tier seemingly an improvement

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=29999

Looking at the 1st race C3 at Maryborough today with Heavens Trend a $1.04 fav
It made me wonder whether with different C3 tiers whether a horse like HT nominating (for a top tier C3) - would the race be more or less likely to hold up?
For lesser nominees the 'pro' would be the top tiers greater place prize money - the 'con' would be the appeal of a win in a lower tier C3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Looking at the 1st race C3 at Maryborough today with Heavens Trend a $1.04 fav
It made me wonder whether with different C3 tiers whether a horse like HT nominating (for a top tier C3) - would the race be more or less likely to hold up?
For lesser nominees the 'pro' would be the top tiers greater place prize money - the 'con' would be the appeal of a win in a lower tier C3

The new scheme does seem more thoughtful and you've brought up some of the great unknown's Kev, but, I feel, the new tiered scheme is more likely to address the short price objective more so than the initial tiered scheme. Happier to give this scheme a go and see what happens.

There will be quite a few things to consider when entering any horse and will be dependant on the horse's future race program. Considering the perspective of the classy 3yo filly getting ready for the Vicbred Super Series is a fairly unique example to look at. Would you want to take on the better/seasoned Tier 1 or even 2 horses and possibly flatten her? Will also depend on which races are programmed at a particular time to suit her program.

For a lot of horses it may well be a question of owners working out if paying the daily training fees for a fit horse waiting for a top tier race is worth the wait?? But then again if they punt and get the better odds....

And the timing of the introduction of the scheme, being September 1, will see a lot of the better aged group racehorses out spelling, a different ball game to what we can propose now, and of course will change when they re-enter the system.

I think it's time to get a bit excited about the what if's and hat's off to Vaughn Lynch and Co. Under the pump but keeping things fluid. Maybe the way Tiered racing was introduced was planned. Throw it out there and get people thinking. I dare say Vaughn and Co got more "feedback" than sending out a survey beforehand.

All good points Wayne.
I had not considered the times when a trainer might want to opt for an easy tier, early in a prep
And I think you are right about 'throwing it out there' providing more feedback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

It will be interesting to see how much difference Tiered Racing makes in the new season
Tonight at Ballarat 8/9 races Odds On favs

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...A260716&ms=vic

The new stakemoney arrangements kick in on Sept 1 - you can preview the draft programs here...

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-ca...2016&state=VIC

It appears that the various levels will be spread across meetings where practical, with consideration given to particular clubs locations, strengths, weaknesses in attracting fields etc.

The original document had stated that particular stake levels would be staged "predominantly" on particular days etc.

I believe this is something the Industry Advisory Council pushed for to avoid an "us and them" situation between bigger and smaller clubs. They're all here for the same purpose in reality.

It will be interesting to see how the new arrangements go.

Interesting stuff Kyle

You only need to look as far as Ararat on Sep 6 for a meet where the C0 is the richest race on the program (and it is not due to all the other races being Restricted class)

It took me until Sept 26 Hamilton to find a meeting where there are 2 races for the same class of horse (C1) with pretty much the same conditions for different prizemoney whereby trainers will ultimately be deciding 'how high to aim'

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-pr...&fromstate=vic

The new system could be good for the smaller clubs in that if punters warm to tiered racing they will punt irrespective of where the meeting is held...of course, turnover days will still be greatly dependant on things like pay day and when discretionary income is exhausted.

You have to think about programming on a regional basis Kev, not so much a particular meeting. In the example you've given, even though harness horses are more likely to race over various distances rather than specialise, it's significant those two races are over different distances and we do have a big C1 pool.
In referring to regional, and considering the horse pool, you'd look at the races programmed for a particular class of horse in the 7-10 day period around that date within a region e.g Stawell, Ballarat etc when picking a race for your horse.

It will be very interesting to see if punters really like the opportunity of the possibility of less odds on favourites. I wonder what the computer modelling looked like on exotic bet forms?

Interesting comments Wayne. A good example re regional programming this weekend where about 15 of the 75 odd starters at Cranbourne are from the immediate region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arlington

The new system could be good for the smaller clubs in that if punters warm to tiered racing they will punt irrespective of where the meeting is held...of course, turnover days will still be greatly dependant on things like pay day and when discretionary income is exhausted.

You have to think about programming on a regional basis Kev, not so much a particular meeting. In the example you've given, even though harness horses are more likely to race over various distances rather than specialise, it's significant those two races are over different distances and we do have a big C1 pool.
In referring to regional, and considering the horse pool, you'd look at the races programmed for a particular class of horse in the 7-10 day period around that date within a region e.g Stawell, Ballarat etc when picking a race for your horse.

It will be very interesting to see if punters really like the opportunity of the possibility of less odds on favourites. I wonder what the computer modelling looked like on exotic bet forms?

I realize it is a regional thing - I see the same horses race at Horsham, Hamilton, Stawell etc but I was too lazy to do such comprehensive research.
I did my research so quickly I did not even look at distances but I must say that I see very little difference between 1660 and 2160 at Hamilton
The duplication is only ever likely to be for C0's and C1's at the same meet
Am I right in thinking that the majority of C1's interested in this meet would nominate for both races.
It would have been interesting to find a program where there was an even bigger discrepancy eg a $3500 and a $7000 race.
In those circumstances I think there could be a risk of the higher race not holding up if a top class horse nominated and the dual nominators all then opted for the lesser stakes race

Quoting Kyle, "It will be interesting to see how the new arrangements go", and not in a negative mindset, we'll just have to suck it and see.

I wouldn't imagine the Cranbourne meeting being a Saturday night meeting would make any difference to Cranbourne but with Warragul Kyle, have you noticed a difference with professional/non professional trainer ratios for a midweek versus weekend? I guess Sunday meetings would be mainly R meetings and I haven't looked that deeply into post Sept 1 programming but as it is now professional trainers do target R meeting which may change with the tiered system? Pro trainers will travel to $10,000 races irrespective of when and where.

Not sure where you're coming from Kev, "I must say that I see very little difference between 1660 and 2160 at Hamilton"?

A lot of existing field selection criteria will remain Kev. In the case of dual nominating, I assume, you will still have the option of preferencing races you nominate for but it's not a given your choice will be acted upon. In short, you don't really have the choice of pulling out of one race once the nominations have closed so it might be more pertinent to consider dually nominating in the future. In the past horses, in part, were multi nominated due to having low field selection points in the hope of getting a run irrespective of distance but I reckon many would have preferenced their preferred distance.

You've picked an interesting program Kev, the C/R0's as well. The devil is in the detail of the 'other conditions'. Besides field selection points the programming is trying to address the incidence of imported, relatively well credentialled NZ horses starting at odds on in lower class races. Also it entices the 24 points horses to have a go at the higher prize money race with the liklihood of them trying to "sneak" into the lower prize money race by dual nominating they'll probably end up in the higher race anyway as the low could have excess noms.
Not sure how often the option of $3500 v $7000 on the one program will happen, more likely to be within a region.

Here's an example of picking your races which I imagine will be replicated, Shepparton C/R0's September 11-16, heats of $3500 leading to a final of $5000 the same meeting as a $10000 race. Considering the 'other conditions' if you were fortunate in winning a heat and the final not a bad pick up rather than running in the $10000. Being early in the season may not give a good indication of how this programming will stymie the number of odds on favourites with the better 3yo's turned out early in their open career but I'm sure there'll be a few nice 3C0/NZ import C0's treading water for this one.

We just have to hope when we do give the punters a longer priced favourite they jump on board. I wonder if we could crystal ball what average price punters would be happy with, meaning our turn over increases? The programming document may well need to be fluid. Even though HRV's budget is under the pump I hope the petty cash account had a few bucks to send Vaughn on a holiday next month. A bit of inflight music for Vaughn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxNSjppLWeQ

Not sure what % are hobbyists as opposed to full time.

It seems about two thirds visitors to one third local horses at most Wgl/Crb meets.

Obviously the key is to get the 33% up to around 40/45% which can only increase field sizes and participation levels.

Around 2.20 - 2.30 would be the desired favourite SP

Some more thoughts on Tiered Racing that someone sent to me:

Tiered Racing sending the wrong message?

Looking through the tiered racing programs on the calendar the races with the reduced prizemoney are primarily targeted at the most poorly performed of low grade horses with as I expected the "conditions" of the race being the prime determinant of eligibility making the "tiered" prizemoney redundant.

These low prizemoney conditioned races may lead to a reduction in short priced favourites in that race which is desirable but how does rewarding the connections with lower prizemoney and still losing a country penalty encourage people with poorer performing horses to keep them in the game for the longer term or new connections and another trainer trying to improve them when they have the same assessment as better performed more talented horses

Seems that we have not been able to get past the racing tradition of better rewarding better performers to increasing the earnings of poorer performers in order to keep them in the racing pool. Whilst the sport of racing will always recognise and reward superior performers we are now in the era of the business of racing and that means that even the least talented of the horse pool needs to be adequately rewarded to ensure their long term contribution to the wagering pool.

Maybe a better rewarded and more comprehensive " R" tier with conditions excluding better performed horses ( only horses who haven't participated in "C" class or have established poor form in "C" class races can drop back to "R" class races) a better option then "C" class races with varying prizemoney. Win, prizemoney or speed criteria could be added to "R" class to compel the better "R" class horses to race in "C" class if their owners weren't willing to step them up themselves.

Perhaps one of the traditions of racing that needs to change in this country to reduce short priced favourites is the practice of trainers racing higher quality performers ( as evidenced by earnings and previous participation in group level events ) against lesser performed horses in "C" class races expecting to win money enroute to metro and or feature races rather then preparing through trials.

In the U.S. Stakes level horses seldom ( usually only if their form has gone off during the season so that they have become eligible) step out in "overnight " and "conditioned" races which are their bread and butter level but instead prepare using qualifiers ( trials) before stepping out straight back in stakes grade.

http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia/Purdon-s-dilemma

I wonder whether the C1 Pacing Major is entered for, will hold up. Nominations fast pulling out.
I received a PM expressing the view that many/most would rather go around for half stakes than contest a race where they are only racing for second

Not complaining about the locals being looked after but I wondered if 5,6,7 are considered worse draws than 8 (2nd line) at Ballarat?
Or is Pacing Major 8 because he is a C0 in a C1 only

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...romstate=vic#2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Not complaining about the locals being looked after but I wondered if 5,6,7 are considered worse draws than 8 (2nd line) at Ballarat?
Or is Pacing Major 8 because he is a C0 in a C1 only

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...romstate=vic#2

Hi Kev. Pacing major drew 8 because it was drawn on sex and he was the only Colt in the race hence he draws 8.

Thanks again Nate, I knew why 1-4 drew that way (mares) but I did not realize that geldings were treated differently from colts - is that it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Not complaining about the locals being looked after but I wondered if 5,6,7 are considered worse draws than 8 (2nd line) at Ballarat?
Or is Pacing Major 8 because he is a C0 in a C1 only

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...romstate=vic#2

Luck of the draw Kev. Pacing Major being a C0, in this race, doesn't come into it, and seeded preferential barrier draws are no longer used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messenger

Some more thoughts on Tiered Racing that someone sent to me:

Tiered Racing sending the wrong message?

Looking through the tiered racing programs on the calendar the races with the reduced prizemoney are primarily targeted at the most poorly performed of low grade horses with as I expected the "conditions" of the race being the prime determinant of eligibility making the "tiered" prizemoney redundant.

These low prizemoney conditioned races may lead to a reduction in short priced favourites in that race which is desirable but how does rewarding the connections with lower prizemoney and still losing a country penalty encourage people with poorer performing horses to keep them in the game for the longer term or new connections and another trainer trying to improve them when they have the same assessment as better performed more talented horses

Seems that we have not been able to get past the racing tradition of better rewarding better performers to increasing the earnings of poorer performers in order to keep them in the racing pool. Whilst the sport of racing will always recognise and reward superior performers we are now in the era of the business of racing and that means that even the least talented of the horse pool needs to be adequately rewarded to ensure their long term contribution to the wagering pool.

Maybe a better rewarded and more comprehensive " R" tier with conditions excluding better performed horses ( only horses who haven't participated in "C" class or have established poor form in "C" class races can drop back to "R" class races) a better option then "C" class races with varying prizemoney. Win, prizemoney or speed criteria could be added to "R" class to compel the better "R" class horses to race in "C" class if their owners weren't willing to step them up themselves.

Perhaps one of the traditions of racing that needs to change in this country to reduce short priced favourites is the practice of trainers racing higher quality performers ( as evidenced by earnings and previous participation in group level events ) against lesser performed horses in "C" class races expecting to win money enroute to metro and or feature races rather then preparing through trials.

In the U.S. Stakes level horses seldom ( usually only if their form has gone off during the season so that they have become eligible) step out in "overnight " and "conditioned" races which are their bread and butter level but instead prepare using qualifiers ( trials) before stepping out straight back in stakes grade.

Some very thoughtful comments Kev. They will be passed on to HRV? As we see the results of the new system some of those proposals might be adopted.

I think the inclusion of the $5000 tier was a good move, the original system with all those R races actually seemed insulting and discouraging. Not sure if I followed the post correctly, so I'll add from Sept 1 the status quo remains in that winning an R doesn't give you a C penalty. Bearing in mind the lower class horses now race for $6375, the opportunity to step up to $5000 with the probability(?) of meeting a more even field seems ok.

Races 3 and 4 at Mildura today - a C0 and a 3C0 produced $1.04 favourites, will Tiered racing change this

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cf...&fromstate=vic

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...L260816&ms=vic

It's here!!

Anyone see any value at Bendigo tonight? Looking at races 1, 2, 4 & 7.

They're not clear cut are they? (I am no tipster)

So far not creating less odds on but 3/4 beaten
$1.10 (ridiculous) $1.30 (won) $1.40 $1.50

At Kilmore tonight, 6 Odds On plus a $2.00 and a $2.10
6/8 favourites successful
Not a lot of value here but Mildura had a nice spread today

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...I020916&ms=vic

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...L020916&ms=vic

And the $3500 races for the battlers are being won by A Gath ! I know it's early but the signs are bad.

7 Races at Ararat tonight, under the new 3 tier system there is $33500 of prize money up for grabs. Under the old system it would have been $45500. So they will take money from the small outer clubs and give it to the ones closer to Melbourne. I can't see how this will help the industry !

http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia...nges-announced

The $5k races have been around for a while so this is just a rubber stamp
The alteration to conditions will make it a bit easier for some NZers to win one

This tiered system is the worst thin to happen to harness racing in my 30+ years of involvement . I have sent one of my horses to NSW and the ones I am breeding will go there too if nothing changes.

Looking at R3 at Hamilton today.
Aerodyne Fella has had 80 starts without a win.
I know the stable is free to do as it pleases but you would have thought the tiered system was supposed to have this horse looking for weaker than $7k C0's

Quote:

Originally Posted by gutwagon

This tiered system is the worst thin to happen to harness racing in my 30+ years of involvement . I have sent one of my horses to NSW and the ones I am breeding will go there too if nothing changes.

Totally agree Rick. We have sold 2 nice 3 year olds to interstate buyers and have one racing in NSW. Eight broodmares also reside in NSW as well. Fields appear to be small in Vic but the problem is the massive over regulation of nomination conditions. Many of our horses cannot get a run . Trainers are frustrated and owners are running out of patience and money. It is not too much to ask to get a run for your horse , an opportunity to break even and to enjoy a sport I love.